Jeff Lacys performance was better

Only wise boxing man.... Who would you favor over Joe at his best?:think

Joe ALWAY finds a way to win

46-0:deal

 

At light heavy all time greats like Bob Foster and Ezzard Charles I believe would have beaten Calzaghe. Not many others would have though!

 

Against that level of competition, how could a decent level of fighter like Joe help but win?

Joe fought 43 yr old Hopkins and alomost 40 year old shot Roy Jones at LHW. I have no issues saying he'd lose to any number of LHWs. Especially considering the PEAK level of his competition at any weight was Mikkel Kessler.

How about this. Go to almost any credible list of the top LHW's of all time, take the first 2 dozen, ans say they all beat Joe Calzaghe. That is far, far more accurate and likely than saying none of them would beat him.

 

The only thing I disagree with is Moorer having a puncher's chance.

He has no chance.

 

:good

 

Puncher's chance

 

This.
At least someone in this thread makes sense. JC's resume is way too thin at light heavy. His only meaningful fight there against a 43 yr old blown up middleweight was way too close and lackluster( I thought he lost) for JC to be in the discussion among all time greats at 175.

 

They're trolling me. I know it. And they know I know it. And....

Anyway, yeah.

 

Froch has a better resume at 168. Groves, Kessler, Bute, Abraham, Pascal. Calzaghe has Lacy, Kessler, Bika, and... who?